5-62-2001 1:47PM FROM P.17

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: | Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 2:30 PM (Time), 03/15/2001 (Date)

File #: 95-259894

Laboratory #(s): 40224002

Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ XO Oo D 0 UL, PR a XD D a cp oO Oo o Matenals Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Testimony Date(s): Pages: x). Laboratory Report(s): é

Laboratory Number: 40224002 Date: May 8, 1984

Laboratory Number: ‘ . Date:

Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ

Laboratory Number: 40224002

Page 1 of 3

Initials: Sua

5-@2-2081 1:47PM FROM

Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes G No S ~

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | Submitting agency letter (dated 2-16-84)

Results of Review File #: 95-259894 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: QI], Q3-Q16, Q21-Q24, KI, K2,

K5-K10

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner. based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequatcly documented in the bench notes? OYes XONo Gc Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

XO Transcript not available. P 3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? OYes OGNo OG Unable to Determine 4) Testimony consistent with the peach notes? OYes ONo O€© Unable to Determine 5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes ONo 0 Unable to Determine

Initials: Bite

Page 2 of 3

5-62-2041 1:48PM FROM P.19

Comments ee ~ (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. ; ; Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-259894

#1: With microscopic hair compatison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison

was performed correctly.

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the

documentation is marginally adecuate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses

abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret. P

The technician's notes do not document that hair was recovered from the Q items.

Review completed at: 2:45 PM (Time), 03/15/2001 (Date) Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0:15 hours

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total 2 3 pages.

03/15/2001

Z (Signature) (Date)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: SUA

, Pp